joyfulgirl
Blue Crack Addict
- Joined
- Apr 11, 2001
- Messages
- 16,690
Like Kerry would need to cheat, lol, when he's debating deer-in-the-headlights.
joyfulgirl said:Like Kerry would need to cheat, lol, when he's debating deer-in-the-headlights.
Dreadsox said:Sting....Kerry Nasty and Bush Nasty are two different things. I think Mr. McCain would agree,.
LoveTown said:capturing osama is good....
loosing over 1000 young soldiers in Iraq is a shame because we shouldn't be there.....and that is a Bush thing. So even if he does something good it doesnt negate the fact that he also messed up royally in Iraq.
deep said:
It is just manna for their masses.
They must keep their base fired up.
If Kerry won, he must have cheated.
We all know the Lord annointed Bush to be President.
Dreadsox said:That is kind of amusing...I figured you would respond like that. How Mr. McCain can support Mr. Bush, makes him a better man than I. If I had been depicted in the manner the Bush machine portrayed him in the last election, I would not be able to see through it. As I said, he is a better man than I am.
And if you can show any example of Mr. Kerry or the Democratic party, not a 527 engaging in behavior equivalent to what Mccain went through, please present your case. As usual I have an open mind.
Dreadsox said:That is kind of amusing...I figured you would respond like that. How Mr. McCain can support Mr. Bush, makes him a better man than I. If I had been depicted in the manner the Bush machine portrayed him in the last election, I would not be able to see through it. As I said, he is a better man than I am.
...
John McCain: Bushwhacked
By all rights, Senator John McCain should have won the Republican presidential nomination in 2000. After McCain surged in the New Hampshire primary, however, something unseemly took place:
"What happened has taken on the air of an unsolved crime, a cold case, with Karl Rove [George W. Bush's chief political advisor and a master of negative campaigning] being the prime suspect. Bush loyalists, maybe working for the campaign, maybe just representing its interests, claimed in parking-lot handouts and telephone 'push polls' and whisper campaigns that McCain's wife, Cindy, was a drug addict, that McCain might be mentally unstable from his captivity in Vietnam, and that the senator had fathered a black child with a prostitute. Callers push-polled members of a South Carolina right-to-life organization and other groups, asking if the black baby might influence their vote. [After McCain met with a group of gay Republicans, fliers were distributed calling McCain the "fag candidate."]
"Now here's the twist, the part that drives McCain admirers insane to this very day: That last rumor took seed because the McCains had done an especially admirable thing. Years back they'd adopted a baby from a Mother Teresa orphanage in Bangladesh. Bridget, now eleven years old, waved along with the rest of the McCain brood from stages across the state, a dark-skinned child inadvertently providing a photo op for slander. The attacks were of a level and vitriol that even McCain, who was regularly beaten in captivity, could not ignore. He began to answer the slights, strayed off message about how he would lead the nation if he got the chance, and lost the war for South Carolina. Bush emerged from the showdown upright and victorious... and onward he marched."
[In June 2004, the Bush-Cheney campaign website (georgewbush.com) displayed pictures of Adolf Hitler between photographs of prominent Democratic politicians.]
[Trivia: Karl Rove was allegedly fired from the 1992 Bush presidential campaign after he admitted to planting a negative story (with columnist Robert Novak) about dissatisfaction with campaign fundraising chief Robert Mosbacher Jr.]
anne,BostonAnne said:diamond, where did you find a site called zombietime?
BostonAnne said:
Sorry, but I think this whole thing is quite silly. Nothing left to say in this thread.
dlihcraw said:The only possible way Kerry could have cheated was by not destroying Bush on a number of subjects. Bush claims to value the lives of American soldiers, yet he has not attended a single funeral for a fallen American soldier, and he has not permitted the media to fairly cover the war, such as restricting the right of the media to photograph returning American coffins from Iraq. If the public was more aware of American loses in Iraq, support for the war would diminish to levels lower than they are already!
The object of a debate is to refute one’s opponent’s arguments as best as possible. Kerry did not refute many of Bush’s arguments as best he could, thus cheating the American public out of a dramatic win for the Democrat!
STING2 said:Lets remember that the American public has supported wars that had loss rates 20, 30, and over 40 times the current rate in Iraq.
ThatGuy said:
That's silly. The American public has supported slavery in the past too, but that doesn't mean that it's okay today. The American public has supported the prohibition of alcohol in the past. The American public has supported the disenfranchisement of women voters ... etc.
I'm glad that the troops aren't being killed at rates as high as past wars, but obviously what America put up with in the past might not be the same as what they'll put up with today.
And besides, half of all Americans now think that the war in Iraq was unnecessary.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6159637/site/newsweek/
ThatGuy said:Wow, that is an awfully large and clear picture, neutral. I think you're misunderstanding, though. If you use small blurry pictures it is clearly a piece of paper that Kerry's pulling out of his pocket. Make this picture smaller and blurrier so that I can see the truth, please.
ThatGuy said:
That's silly. The American public has supported slavery in the past too, but that doesn't mean that it's okay today. The American public has supported the prohibition of alcohol in the past. The American public has supported the disenfranchisement of women voters ... etc.
I'm glad that the troops aren't being killed at rates as high as past wars, but obviously what America put up with in the past might not be the same as what they'll put up with today.
And besides, half of all Americans now think that the war in Iraq was unnecessary.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6159637/site/newsweek/
ThatGuy said:Way to misinterpret my post and introduce irrelevent information STING!
What I said was, no matter what Americans once supported, America is free to change its mind about what it finds acceptable. The fact that America once supported wars with large numbers of dead does not mean that it will do so now. So your original point is moot (nay, silly). Was that clear enough? I typed it extra-slowly so you'd catch all of it.